CITY OF BATAVIA

TO: Plan Commission

FROM: Joel Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer

DATE: October 15, 2010

SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from September 8)

Amendment to the Official Zoning Map

Mooseheart Property, East and West sides of Randall Road and On

Main Street and Mooseheart/Orchard Roads

Moose International, applicant

SUMMARY

On September 8th

, the Plan Commission began the public hearing to consider amendments to the

Official Zoning Map proposed by Moose International (Mooseheart) in conjunction with their

application for annexation. Background information for this hearing is available at: Amendment to the

Official Zoning Map – Mooseheart Property. Minutes from this hearing are attached to this. The

Commission continued the hearing to October 20th.

The Plan Commission’s role in this application is to conduct the public hearing on the proposed

changes to the Official Zoning Map only, make findings of fact that notice of the public hearing was

executed according to the Zoning Code, and to make a recommendation to the City Council’s

Community Development Committee (CDC) on those proposed Zoning Map changes. The

Commission does not have a role in the gathering of information or decision making on annexation of

property. The Commission’s recommendation on the Zoning Map changes would be considered along

with the annexation and draft annexation agreement by the CDC at their regularly scheduled meetings

that are open to the public to attend.

NEW INFORMATION

At the request of the Plan Commission, and pursuant to the Zoning Code, Moose International held an

informational meeting open to neighboring residents at Mooseheart on October 6th

. Approximately 70

people attended this meeting. Notes prepared by Joe Segobiano, representing Mooseheart at the

hearing, are attached for your review.

Batavia staff has prepared a question and answer sheet, attached. This sheet lists questions raised at

the September 8th

hearing and throughout the process, and provides the City’s response. Additionally

the Commission asked about suspected presence of flood plains and wetlands on the property.

Attached is a map showing flood plain locations using Federal Emergency Management Agency

information and wetland locations from Kane County.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the Commission open the hearing and receive all testimony, and invite questions for

the developer and staff to answer. If questions from attendees and the Plan Commission have been

2

responded to, the Commission can then discuss all information from the public hearing and answers to

the questions, and close the hearing that evening if it chooses. The Commission can leave the hearing

open for submittal of additional information it deems relevant and continue the hearing again. Once

the hearing is closed, the Commission must find that all notice requirements of the Zoning Code have

been met, and can call for a motion on the requested change to the Official Zoning Map and act on the

motion; such action would be a recommendation for action to the CDC. The CDC would then consider

the Commission’s recommendation and the record of the public hearing. The CDC would consider the

annexation request that includes a draft of the annexation agreement. The agreement would be

available to the CDC and the public via the City’s website and hard copy during the week before the

CDC meeting.

If the amount of testimony, questions, and discussion would not allow time for a motion at this

meeting, or if the Commission simply wants more time to review the information, the Commission can

continue the hearing to its next meeting on November 3rd

. The Commission also can close the hearing

if all testimony and questions are addressed, and defer discussion and action on the zoning change to

its next meeting.

If the Commission makes a motion at this meeting, staff recommends the Commission recommend to

the CDC approval of the requested amendments to the Official Zoning Map. Notification requirements

of the Zoning Code have been met. All time deadlines were met for the legal notice publication in the

Daily Herald, neighbors being notified by mail, sign postings on the property, and meeting agenda

postings. The requested amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and

testimony received so far has not been sufficient to conclude that the land use categories shown on the

Land Use Map or the requested zoning districts would be inappropriate. Many concerns raised address

conditions that would be created with development of the property. The City’s Zoning Code,

Subdivision Regulations and design guidelines require quality development standards, and together

with County, State, and Federal regulations and the annexation agreement provide sufficient

protections for all neighboring properties and sensitive natural areas on the Mooseheart site.

Please review the attached information in preparation for the public hearing on October 20th

.

Attachments:

1. Minutes of the September 8th

Plan Commission meeting

2. Notes from October 6th

meeting at Mooseheart

3. Batavia Staff Question and Answer Sheet

4. Map Showing Flood Plain and Wetland Locations

Cc: Mayor and City Council

Department Heads

Joe Segobiano, Hudson Burnham Development Partners

Patrick Griffin, The Law Office of Patrick M. Griffin LLC

Media

MINUTES

September 8, 2010

PLAN COMMISSION

City of Batavia

PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at

the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to

make an official record of the actions taken by the Committee/City Council, and to include some

description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some

of the individual attendee’s comments, nor the complete comments if referenced.

1. Meeting Called to Order

Vice-Chair Kosky called the meeting to order at 7:35pm.

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Vice-Chair Kosky, Evans, Schneider, Joseph, Weiss, Monn, and

Tilmon

Members Absent: Chair Peterson, Harms

Also Present: Jerry Swanson, Director of Community Development; Joel

Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer; Drew Rackow, Planner; Jeff

Albertson, Building Commissioner; Mayor Schielke; Ald. Volk and

Brown

3. Items Added/Removed/Changed

Swanson announced the addition of two new members to the Plan Commission (PC). He

introduced Kris Monn, representing the Batavia Public School district, and John Tilmon,

representing the Batavia Park District.

4. Approve Plan Commission Minutes: August 4, 2010

Motion: To approve the Plan Commission minutes of the August 4, 2010 meeting

Maker: Weiss

Second: Joseph

Voice Vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent. All in favor. Motion carried.

5. Public Hearing – Amendment to the Official Zoning Map – Mooseheart Property, East

and West sides of Randall Road and on Main Street and Mooseheart/Orchard Roads

Moose International, applicant

Commissioner Joseph read a shortened version of the Notice of Public Hearing. Vice-Chair

Kosky noted that there were a lot of people in attendance. She explained the process of the

Public Hearing to the attendees. Vice-Chair Kosky invited staff to present on the amendment to

the official zoning map.

Strassman presented to the Plan Commission (PC). Strassman reported that Moose International

has submitted an application to the City of Batavia to annex portions of the Mooseheart campus

and other property that it owns on the West side of Randall Road. The sole subject of tonight’s

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 2 of 14

hearing is to amend the zoning map for these properties that are proposed to be annexed. The PC

must hold a Public Hearing for any amendment to the Zoning Map and make a recommendation

to the Community Development Committee (CDC) of the City Council (CC) for action on the

map amendment application. On June 9, 2010, the PC held a Public Hearing regarding a proposal

submitted by Mooseheart to amend the City’s Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The

amendment to the Land Use Map was very similar to the application that is presented this

evening except that it was not for zoning but to change or apply alternate land use classifications

to the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The land use classifications that were

proposed in June and recommended for approval by the PC and eventually adopted by the CC

proposed the same land use classifications that are being requested for zoning districts this

evening. Moose International’s annexation and zoning application covers approximately 470

acres. The current Zoning Map amendment seeks to apply zoning districts that are consistent

with the already adopted and existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Strassman explained

that in approving the Land Use Map in June, the PC and the CC found that the proposed land use

classifications requested in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment would provide

reasonable and appropriate alternative land uses for the campus. They also found that the various

classifications for the land use which included general commercial, single and multiple family,

mixed use, and parks and open space would allow for future development and densities that

could be served by public utilities and would efficiently use transportation infrastructure. The

parks and open space land use parcel and proposed zoning would allow for protection of

sensitive environmental and habitat areas.

Strassman reported that the zoning code requires that the PC and CC find that all notification

requirements for a Public Hearing are met. The Zoning Code requires that a legal notice be

published in a newspaper (one was published in the Daily Herald) and that the notice of the

hearing and agenda for the meeting are posted at City Hall in a timely fashion (which was

completed). Strassman added that the information for tonight’s meeting has also been posted on

the City’s website for quite some time. The applicant has submitted the required affidavits that

establish that the applicant posted signs on the property and that letters regarding the Public

Hearing were mailed to nearby property owners. In the weeks since the letters have been mailed

out staff has received several phone calls from neighboring property owners. The property

owners voiced several concerns which included the types and densities of residences that may

eventually be built on the property, the character and proximity of all development to their

properties, and protection of sensitive environmental and habitat areas. Staff recommends that

the PC open the hearing this evening and receive all testimony from those in attendance who

wish to speak. Staff is supportive of this application as it is wholly consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map.

Vice-Chair Kosky asked if there were any questions from the commissioners regarding staff’s

presentation. There were no questions. Vice-Chair Kosky requested to officially open the Public

Hearing.

Motion: To open the Public Hearing

Maker: Weiss

Second: Evans

Voice Vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 3 of 14

Motion carried.

Vice-Chair Kosky invited Joe Segobiano of Hudson Burnham representing Mooseheart to make

a presentation.

Joe Segobiano, 4155 Meadowview Drive, addressed the PC. He announced that Mike Leuer, the

General Counsel of Moose International, and Pat Griffin, Zoning Attorney for the project, are

also in attendance at tonight’s meeting. Segobiano explained that this project was started nearly

two years ago. The goal of the project is for Moose International to position the property for

future development. There are no time frames set at this point and no developers that are being

talked to at this time. What Moose International is doing is attempting to position the property so

that when recovery begins, and as time moves on, Moose International will have the opportunity

to invite developers in and proceed with the property. Segobiano explained that they are asking

for a zoning map amendment and are not asking for any approvals for site plans. There are no

site plans that are being contemplated at this point. Anything that takes place from this time

forward will have to come to the PC for approval (e.g. any site plans or proposals).

Segobiano explained that he is with Hudson Burnham Development Partners. Hudson Burnham

has been retained by Moose International purely as an advisor. In this role they are serving as the

master developer for Moose International. Moose International is not planning on developing

any of this property themselves. They are considering partnerships. One of the key focuses of

this process is that we invite and engage top-shelf developers into this community. It is very

important for Moose International to create a quality of life community, meaning a very high

standard community here because of the fact that Mooseheart is a neighbor of Batavia and are a

part of Batavia.

Segobiano described the process of this project. He stated that the first thing completed was

developing a highest and best use analysis. Some of the things considered in this analysis were

the market conditions, communications with City staff, surrounding land uses, quality of life

issues within Batavia, and environmental issues. The highest and best use is similar to what is

presented tonight but with some alterations from speaking with City staff. From the highest and

best use standpoint, Hudson Burnham then worked with the City of Batavia on this process.

Segobiano noted that this is not something that they want to push through and they would like to

take time with this process to make sure that the best decisions are made. They understand that

this whole process will take a lot of time. One of the things that are most important in this

process is that we fully engage the public/private concept. We are as concerned about what

happens to this property just as the City is. What we envision is a process in which we are

working with the City almost as another tier in regard to approval of potential developers.

Moose International is extremely interested in seeing quality development. Segobiano explained

that Moose is looking to create revenue to maintain the quality of life at Mooseheart for the

children at Mooseheart.

Segobiano explained the intent to use the land based on the general descriptions of the land use.

The North corner (Main and Randall) is proposed to have 60 acres of general commercial. At

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 4 of 14

this point, given the market conditions, it is hard to discern what the property would be. Moose

International would like to see something along the lines of an anchored lifestyle retail center.

There is a small 20 acre parcel in the middle which is being targeted as mixed use zoning. What

would be foreseen in this area would be a development that may have 2-3 stories offering retail,

office space, residential, and public space. There are about 119 acres which surround this area

and are adjacent to this community which is earmarked as R1H which is single family detached.

The density would be 3.5-5 dwelling units per acre. Moose International has agreed to put a deed

restriction on that property so that it would be active adult restricted. All of the homes would

more than likely be ranch homes and the age restriction would be 55 or better. There are

approximately 47 acres which would be set aside as parks and open space. From the zoning

standpoint, we are very sensitive to the fact that there are mature growth trees and the bald eagle

nesting in the tree. This property would be preserved as open space. South on Randall there are

approximately 60 additional acres of active adult via deed restriction which would be zoned 3.5-

5 dwelling units per acre. The corners are being proposed as general commercial. We feel that

this will be a destination opportunity for a developer. At this point there is no concept on the

property whatsoever. Segobiano continued that alternative uses were considered but found that

there was no fit for alternative uses (e.g. office space and residential). West there are 28 acres

targeted as multi-family, 8-14 to the acre. Currently this is earmarked as potentially higher end

rental. There are no developers being spoken to for that property. Moose International is merely

seeking zoning at this point. Segobiano concluded his presentation with asking if the PC had any

questions.

Weiss asked for clarification on Hudson Burnham’s role when working with potential

developers. Segobiano responded that Hudson Burnham would present the property to

developers that they feel would be a good fit for Mooseheart and the City of Batavia. They

would seek out developers initially. However, timing is an unknown factor. Before a developer is

brought to the City, Hudson Burnham will determine if the developer would do what is in the

best interest for Mooseheart and the City of Batavia. If so, we will bring the developer to the City

and ask if this would be a good partnership. Weiss asked if Mooseheart is also involved.

Segobiano answered that Moose is involved. Hudson Burnham does not make any decisions but

is a partner in the process to help give guidance. Mooseheart has a Land Use Committee which

Segobiano reports to. The Land Use Committee could make certain decisions but ultimate

decisions are made by the Supreme Council. There were no other questions from the PC.

Kosky asked for staff to explain the approval process for the potential amendment to the Official

Zoning Map. Strassman explained that currently the City staff is in the process of working with

Joe Segobiano and Mike Griffin for preparation and review of an annexation agreement. The

annexation agreement came in as part of the annexation application. The application includes the

land to be developed, the amendment to the Zoning Map, and the annexation agreement. The

annexation agreement would detail such items as the deed restriction, age restriction, and how

infrastructure will be provided to the property. Negotiating an annexation agreement is a lengthy

process. The next step would be when staff and Mooseheart feel comfortable with the annexation

agreement to schedule the CDC meeting that would include the committee’s review of the

annexation agreement along with a PC recommendation of the rezoning. That step would not

include a development proposal. It would simply be the annexation agreement and the rezoning.

The CDC will review it and have a conversation with the applicant. The public can attend that

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 5 of 14

meeting. There will be no notification requirement for this meeting. Therefore, there will not be

any mailings to nearby property owners. Once the CDC has reviewed the recommendation of the

PC on the rezoning and feels comfortable with the annexation agreement, the CDC would make

a recommendation to the full CC. The full CC would be presented with ordinances to approve an

annexation agreement, to annex the property and then to apply the zoning districts. The CC’s

review and possible adoption of the annexation agreement is a Public Hearing. There will be

notification. The only notification required is that a legal notification be published in a

newspaper. There will be no notice sent out to neighboring property owners. Staff invites

neighboring property owners the visit the City’s website or to contact staff and ask when the

meetings are scheduled. All meetings are posted on the internet. Agendas are posted Thursday or

Friday the week prior to the meetings. If the CC approves of the ordinances, the next step is

sometime down the line the City would hope for development proposals to come in.

Vice-Chair Kosky opened the floor for public comment.

John Dodo, 146 Feece Drive, noted that the notice to change the land use probably did not

produce this amount of meeting attendees. It is what the land is being changed to is what is

concerning to him. He objected to the commercial development on Main Street. The problems

would include additional traffic and interference with emergency vehicles which does not make

sense. He wanted to make sure that the PC was aware of his concerns.

Marty Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant Lane, stated concern with Mooseheart leasing the land. He

mentioned that another village has had problems with leasing land. He was concerned about

what happens to a commercial building when the business goes bankrupt. He questioned who is

in charge of maintaining the building, who is responsible for the taxes, and who has the liability.

Segobiano responded that Moose International does not want to sell the property. They are

looking at unique joint venture structures or long-term leases. If a developer does go bankrupt or

goes out of business there is a vested interest by Moose International in that property and there is

a vested interest in seeing that property put back to a productive mode. Barrett asked if Moose

International will accept liability in those cases or will the Batavia tax payers be burdened with

that. Segobiano responded that this property would be 100 percent fully taxed on the Batavia tax

rolls. At this point, they do not foresee the Batavia tax payer having any responsibility. Each

agreement will have this issue looked at differently but we will look to put most of the

responsibility on to the developer. However, seeing what is going on in the market we do know

that there will need to be a back stop which will be addressed in each agreement. This is

something that they are sensitive to.

Barrett stated concern with the park and open space because placing a park near a four lane

highway does not make sense to him. He would rather see the park be moved to the interior.

Segobiano responded that this space will only be open space and will not be an active park but

rather a preserve. He added that an additional 20 acre piece of land for the school and the park

district is being worked out for the exact location. Barrett expressed concern with the lake within

that park and with water retention. Water retention may be a big problem. Segobiano stated that

the lake will remain as well as the tributary that goes through the space. The developer will be

responsible to be aligned with the Kane County storm water management requirements. There

will be detention that will not utilize the lake. Segobiano stated that we envision 2-3 regional

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 6 of 14

storm water detention facilities but would like the market to dictate where exactly they will be

located. We have the authority to mandate a detention facility. Currently, there are no developers

interested and it would be premature to find exact locations for storm water management.

Barrett feels that this plan is premature based on the fact that there are no developers and

reiterated that because this land would be leased he would oppose this amendment and hopes that

the PC will reject this. The audience applauded his comment. Segobiano responded that there is

an interest from developers for this land. He receives inquiries on a weekly basis. Currently,

there are no discussions being held with developers.

Barrett asked about the single family high density and what load would it put on the fire

department, paramedics, Main Street, and access roads. He noted that there are very few details

available with this plan. Segobiano responded that as we go through the process the details will

be brought forward. There will be a requirement in the annexation agreement that mandates that

improvements be made on Main Street. A traffic study would be made. Barrett asked if Moose

International has approached North Aurora. Segobiano responded that they have and there is a

boundary agreement in place between the City of Batavia and the Village of North Aurora.

Barrett exclaimed that he would recommend voting against this at this time. The audience

applauded this comment.

Tom Gorr, 609 Millview Drive, asked about the proposed active adult restricted community. He

questioned how easily could this restriction be changed or lifted. Segobiano responded that it is a

deed restriction which cannot be changed. Gorr asked if the community would be taxed.

Segobiano answered that the residents would be 100% taxed. Swanson added that the Batavia

school district does not encompass the entire Mooseheart campus. The West Aurora school

district has the most Southern portion of the property. Gorr asked if any of the commissioners

live adjacent to this property. Vice-Chair Kosky responded that the PC represents all of the

quadrants of the City. Although Commissioners may not live adjacent they do live nearby. Gorr

asked about the densities, specifically for Harvell Farms. Swanson responded that he believes

that Harvell Farms is between 2-3.5 dwelling units per acre.

Vice-Chair Kosky clarified that what is being looked at tonight is proposed zoning districts.

Layouts for a site plan, storm water facilities, roads, clustering or spacing of housing would be

an entirely separate process. This meeting is regarding zoning and land uses proposed.

Amy Carrado, 570 Mallard Point Drive, North Aurora, questioned if there was a plan for

Mooseheart to remove the barn. Segobiano responded that at this point the barn will remain post

annexation. If the developer could make it a re-adaptive use (reutilize the building for an

alternative purpose) they would prefer that. Without a developer at the table, it is impossible to

answer some of these details. Carrado asked for explanation on what a unique destination use

would be. Segobiano responded that a destination use is a place that people would plan to go to.

It would not be a place in which pedestrians would drive by and stop. Entertainment and athletic

uses would be an example. Carrado commented that her family is not happy with Mooseheart

Road being classified as a designated truck route. It is too noisy and affects her quality of life.

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 7 of 14

Pam Barry, 3S175 Volintine Farm Road, expressed concern with drainage problems. She already

suffers from flooding issues. Segobiano stated that they would work with the City and make sure

the developer commits to the Kane County storm water management requirements. If there are

extenuating circumstances or uncommon problems, we would engage with the local residents

and try to address those. Barry asked if this would it affect the current wetlands. Segobiano

responded that he could not answer that at this time. If the wetlands are under the Army Corp of

Engineers jurisdiction we would be precluded from impacting those. Barry asked if there would

be a buffer between the proposed rental property and the commercial property to the Heritage

West subdivision. Segobiano stated that at this point they are obligated to the zoning ordinances.

However, we reserve the right to administer stricter guidelines if deemed necessary.

Barry asked how the applicant could ensure the proposed rental property would be an upscale

rental property. And in which school district would the rental property reside in. Segobiano

answered that the property is in the West Aurora school district. Segobiano stated that right now

this is a best use but it doesn’t mean that a multi family developer comes in it cannot be there.

How we accommodate higher end use we do that by the fact that different developers will be

brought to the table. This is for a long-term use and not about a quick sale. Moose is concerned

about what happens on that property. Swanson commented that the PC adopted the strictest set of

design guidelines for multi-family housing than any jurisdiction in the western suburbs. The

guidelines require high quality materials, consideration of adjacent property owners, site

planning, and landscaping. The PC has full design review authority of developers and will ensure

that they follow the multi family guidelines. The design guidelines are available for anyone to

review on the City’s website. Barry asked if a streetlight would be available for the entrance to

Heritage West. Segobiano stated that until there is a development we don’t know that for sure.

However, there will be signalization on any Randall Road entrance.

Mike Gross, 1209 McClurg Drive, asked with the push to revitalize the downtown why do we

need more commercial property on Randall Road when there are so many properties that are

vacant already. The audience applauded this comment. Swanson stated that the CC understands

that the number one priority is the revitalization of the downtown. Currently there is a park

district recreation center and parking deck in consideration for development in the downtown.

Swanson added that the City intends to implement streetscape design downtown. He noted that

downtown businesses are not the same market niche as the ones along Randall Road. The CC

amended the Comprehensive Plan this past June with these recommendations for land use in

mind. The number one priority for public funds is in the downtown and they continue to make

downtown the number one priority. Gross asked what is the benefit for Batavia and how much

money will this bring the city. Segobiano responded that the numbers will be available shortly.

At this point the numbers have not been discussed. One benefit is that this property will be 100%

taxable. There will be no tax incentives for the active adult, there are no sales tax incentives, no

subsidies, no TIFF, no SSA, and no public financing of any sort, all of which will be in the

annexation agreement.

Helen Zagoren, 1229 McClurg Drive, has observed stores within Batavia relocating to Geneva

and North Aurora. She questioned why we are making more spaces for buildings when so many

are already vacant. She noted that currently, the intersection of the proposed retail is dangerous.

Zagoren expressed concern about the other wildlife besides the bald eagle that currently resides

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 8 of 14

on Mooseheart property. Segobiano responded that they are also concerned about the wildlife.

Most of the wildlife is located in the forested areas of Mooseheart which is not planned to be

annexed or zoned at this point and it will be kept as is. Zagoren questioned why the property next

to Main Street will not be used for the high school and why does the City we need more people.

More houses will bring more drain upon our system. She thought that Batavia was done growing.

Zagoren concluded that she feels that this is a very bad situation.

Janet Wulbert, 813 Millview Drive, stated that it is hard to go ahead with the plan when there are

so many unknowns. It is hard to trust the plan without knowing details. Wulbert suggested

postponing a vote until we know who the developers are. She asked about what will happen to

the creek at Millview and Danforth. If more housing is developed, what will become of the water

retention? Segobiano stated that at this early time we do not know what will happen with the

creek. There are standards that would require developers to maintain and improve that area. He

added that there are standards in place to protect against developers making water retention

worse. Wulbert wondered about having a buffer partly because of water retention and partly

because of a tree line with old trees and most have gardened along the tree line. She wondered

how close to the property line will the new homes be built. Segobiano stated that he cannot

answer at this time. However, our incentive is different than a large retail developer. There will

be a different approach because we may be very sensitive to issues as opposed to a typical

developer only driven by the bottom line. With us being in the process we could give more

sensitivity.

Wulbert stated that a few years ago Batavians were asked to vote for a recreation center for that

type of use for this property and it was voted down. It involved eminent domain so she voted

against it. She wonders if before the Plan Commission votes on the annexation if we should

revisit having a recreation center on that property. There would be a lot of room to grow as

opposed to the one downtown. Wulbert is concerned that the pool only has six lanes because a

six lane pool will not support a swim team for Batavia High School. In order to avoid buying

more land for the high school, she questioned if the recreation center could be proposed at this

site. Vice-Chair Kosky responded that currently, the 20 acres of proposed additional land for the

school and park district is proposed to be located in close proximity to the high school. It is not

listed on the map at this time because just like the labeling of roads, it is an entirely different

process. Swanson clarified that the City has an ordinance that requires park and school land

dedication as a part of land development. The proposed residential development would cause a

requirement of 20 acres of land above and beyond of what is shown on the map to be dedicated

for park and school. The annexation agreement has certain requirements that are being

negotiated. The PC does not get involved with the agreement. The CC does those negotiations

themselves with the developer. The 20 acres in question are likely to be located south of the fire

station, across from the park. It is the plan of the park and school district that these would be

athletic fields. The improvement of that land will be the responsibility of the district. The vote

that occurred to locate the recreation center was a park district and not a City proposal. Wulbert

concluded that it would be a good time to look at relocating the recreation center as another

option.

Derek Cepolski, 703 Millview Drive, stated that homes on Millview Drive and Ellen floods

every time it rains. If buildings are built along this area, it would raise the water table and it will

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 9 of 14

continue to rise. He would like to know what guarantee would be in place that residents will not

flood and that there would be no water problems. Pat Griffin, 48701 School Road, representing

Mooseheart responded to the question. He reiterated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is

zoning and land uses of these parcels. Many of the questions presented tonight deal with more

specific details that are the subject of an annexation agreement which is being worked on with

the City staff. It will hopefully answer some of these questions. As it relates to storm water

management, there is a section in the annexation agreement that requires developers to comply

with the stormwater management requirements. A comprehensive annexation agreement is

created to handle these issues. Griffin expressed that we are asking tonight if we are in

compliance with the already adopted Comprehensive Plan which we currently are. The

annexation agreement should answer a lot of the questions that will come to the City and will be

available for review. Segobiano stated that beyond that there would be a site plan approval

process in which this body will have authority over. The site plan approval will place mandates

on the site as well.

Spencer Kroning, 608 Millview Drive, stated his support for several of the issues people have

already spoken about. He added that there seems to be a big rush to get this approved. He

mentioned that there were a lot of meetings that residents were not aware of in June. He strongly

supports this area remaining as open space. Kroning noted that the City has recognized in reports

available on the City’s website that there are flooding problems in this area. He commented that

it is possible that these houses should not have been built but they were approved by the City. He

added that the value of his property has been lowered due to flooding and will further be lowered

with a sea of houses nearby. The audience applauded this comment. Just the additions to the high

school have changed what the water does in his neighborhood. Kroning reported that 15% of the

area off of Millview Drive proposed to be high density housing is already reported to be a

frequently flooded area according to the Kane County maps. He noted that the detention pond at

Millview and Ellen frequently exceeds its banks. Weiss commented that revisions to retention

ponds have been implemented. Kroning responded that the retention ponds have overflowed

even after the revisions.

Kroning stated that we have an opportunity to maintain fabulous open spaces which are rare. A

few years ago the City supported that this property remain as open space. The City of Batavia

historically has taken time in making decisions (e.g. bridges). He thinks that the City needs to

take time on this issue. Although CC has already approved the Land Use this is largely a

formality. Vice-Chair Kosky noted that there are a lot of steps before this project becomes a

reality.

Jo Chesters, 513 Ellen Lane, stated that the retention pond discussed by Kroning overflows onto

her property quite often. She stated that she would like to know what residents say tonight will

be taken into consideration or if plans have already have been made. Vice-Chair Kosky stated

that this is the first Public Hearing regarding this issue and the concerns and questions from the

public are taken very seriously.

Chesters expressed her concern with property values. The supply and demand within Batavia has

allowed for property values to not plummet. As soon as this property is annexed and zoned with

high density housing she exclaimed that the property values will go down. Chesters is

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 10 of 14

additionally concerned that Randall Road will become similar to Route 59, overpopulated and

unable to accommodate all of the traffic. She stated that Batavia is doing great and feels that this

plan is trying to mimic areas that are failing.

Chesters asked what the tax revenue generated by the single family and multi-family housing

will be and if the revenue will be greater than the cost of the municipal services provided by the

City. Segobiano stated that the developer would be required to pay for all of the utilities installed

and property taxes. The police department and schools have not been factored in as of yet. They

are working with the City regarding this. Swanson stated that the proposal for age restricted

housing means that there will be no new children entered into the school district but they will

pay taxes that the rest of Batavia residents pay. The only possibility of an addition of new

children that will be generated by the project would be from the multi family development which

is in the West Aurora school district. Chesters commented that the active adult community would

potentially free up housing within Batavia due to people moving into the new community. She

does not want to see an increase of empty lots. Swanson stated that the school superintendent of

the Batavia school district brought that concern up to the commission as well. The PC did have

an opportunity to discuss that point as well as the CDC and CC. With that knowledge they still

recommended approval. Chesters concluded that the property values will drop on the day that the

property is zoned because there will be ample supply of land to build housing. At the current

moment we are beating that supply. The audience applauded this statement.

Becky Hoag, 1281 Danforth Drive, questioned if Mooseheart has a land covenant in place. She

would like the City to clear that issue up that there is a covenant that this land could not be sold.

She asked this question based on the fact that the proposed land will not be sold but will be

leased. She asked if there will be tax on the active adult community homes even though the land

will be leased. Segobiano responded that it would be taxed. Hoag asked for an example of an

anchored lifestyle center. Segobiano responded that the kind of facility we would like to see is a

retail facility more sensitive to design, such as a boutique and two or three retail stores. There are

no examples of an anchored lifestyle center nearby to compare it to. Hoag noted that a hotel

complex has been discussed and asked if it would be in compliance with the land use. Vice-Chair

Kosky responded that a hotel is a permitted use in the general commercial land use. Hoag is also

concerned with flood issues and would like to see an overlay for the flood plan on Parcel C to

see how much you really could develop. She stated that the land on Parcel C looks to be a flood

plain already and does not feel that it could accommodate 5 homes per acre. She concluded that

more details need to be shown.

Tom Gorr, 609 Millview Drive, approached the commission again to ask if children would be

permitted in the active adult community. Segobiano responded that the house restriction would

be ages 55 or better. This does not mean that children would be permitted. In regards to the trust

issues, Gorr noted that when he bought his property he was told that the property by the high

school was unbuildable.

Sharon Gibson, Heritage West 37W478 Schuster Lane, is concerned with the quality of life in

the neighborhood. The noise, lights, traffic, and difficulty getting out of her subdivision on

certain times of the day would be increased if this property is developed. Gibson is also

concerned with the empty commercial buildings along Randall Road. More commercial does not

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 11 of 14

make sense to her. She feels that those who own parcels next to this land are not having a proper

say or input in the matter. The audience applauded this comment.

Dave Bower, 1435 Green Pheasant Lane, is disappointed that they want to develop the land after

seventy years of having a farm there. He would like to know what Batavia is going to get out of

this deal. He feels that if this land is developed as proposed, Batavia would lose some of its

character and some of its charm. He does appreciate the good intentions of Mooseheart

International but feels that Batavia residents will be saddled with the expenses. Bower asked the

PC to take into account the cost that the proposed zoning will cost Batavia in the future. He gave

an example of the Braeburn marsh and how much it has cost the city to maintain the marshland.

Debbie Westley, 2S961 Heritage Glen Court, is concerned about Orchard and Randall Road. She

asked about multi-family medium density and if it refers to townhomes or apartments. Swanson

responded that it could be either condominiums or apartments. Townhomes are possible but

unlikely. She asked if Mooseheart would benefit from the leasing of the apartments. Segobiano

responded that at this early juncture they are not sure if it would be apartments or condominiums.

They are not sure on how Moose International would enter into a joint partnership at this time.

Segobiano reiterated that the land will not be sold to a developer. Westley noted that the

southwest corner of Orchard and Randall Road now has a lot of vacant buildings on property that

Mooseheart has already sold. She feels that having more development there would be an eyesore.

Westley asked if the adjacent unincorporated neighborhoods would be annexed and then required

to change their source of water. Segobiano responded regarding the Mooseheart property. He

stated that the annexation agreement discusses water treatment on the southern parcels of land

which will be a part of the Batavia water system. This will be at the developers cost. Swanson

stated annexation is a voluntary process unless a property is completely surrounded by city

limits. Annexation would not likely be contemplated. The City has no authority over septic

tanks. They are under the Kane County Health Department’s jurisdiction. Westley asked if the

Batavia electricity be going that far south. Swanson responded that the annexation agreement in

particular with electric contemplates the city’s electric service serving all of the annexed area but

not anything outside the city limits. Com Ed does not have the authority to serve in the city

limits.

Westley asked if this is common to have this much land to be annexed without development

plans. Segobiano responded that this is very common. Swanson stated that this is not common in

Batavia. Westley commented that she likes the open spaces that Mooseheart provides but

understands that development is necessary. Westley would like the council to take into

consideration that there are a lot of unanswered questions here and to take their time in deciding

on the zoning.

Charlie Corey, 1311 Towne Avenue, asked for clarification on the importance of this meeting

tonight. Corey asked if tonight’s meeting/decision is as important as the decision vote on June

9th

. Vice-Chair Kosky responded that there are many decisions along the way and the decision to

rezone is as important if not more as the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Corey

asked if the vote tonight is a critical vote. Swanson interjected that the PC action would be a

recommendation to the CDC. The CDC is the committee that will review the annexation

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 12 of 14

agreement, the PC recommendation, and any ordinances that will annex the property and then

pass a recommendation to the CC. The real decision authority rests with the CC. Annexation

agreement, the annexation itself, and the zoning are all under final purview of the CC. Corey

stated that his point was to ask if the PC votes “no” on the zoning if this would send a strong

message to the CC. Swanson stated that it would. Corey concluded that it is very important that

the PC listen and act on what you have heard and not just listen and then ram things through like

it has been done in politics lately. The audience applauded this comment.

Rich Bicek, 415 Ellen Lane, asked if this was a done deal. Segobiano responded that it is not.

Bicek asked if there is something that the residents need to say or do to ensure that it is known

that the residents do not want this zoning to happen in this way at this time. Swanson stated that

the minutes of this meeting, which will include all of the public comments, will be sent to the CC

for review. He added that the future CDC meeting with the PC recommendation is open to the

public and it is at the discretion of the chair to take public comment. There will be a public

hearing on the annexation agreement for CC. Vice-Chair Kosky suggested that residents contact

their alderpersons.

Chris Surtz, 517 Ellen Lane, is concerned with drainage issues, planning issues, and the creek

bed. He asked about the adoption of Ordinance 10-23 on the June 21, 2010. There was a vote 5-0

in favor of the ordinance. Strassman stated that Ordinance 10-23 was approved by CC which was

the ordinance amending the city’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. Land use classifications

have been applied to the Mooseheart property as shown on the current Comprehensive Plan.

Strassman explained that it is a good planning practice to have the Comprehensive Plan Land

Use Map and Zoning Map to be aligned. It was a conscious effort by the City of Batavia to have

Moose International to complete the Comprehensive Plan process before putting effort into the

annexation process and zoning. A Public Hearing was held in this conference room regarding the

Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment. The CDC made a recommendation to amend

the Land Use Map based on the PC recommendation. The recommendation was made to the full

CC and the CC considered that ordinance at an open meeting and subsequently adopted it. Surtz

asked if this ordinance predicated this zoning. Strassman responded that it strengthens the

proposal to apply the various zoning districts if the Comprehensive Plan shows those land use

categories. Surtz asked to know who voted in favor and against the ordinance. Swanson

responded that the vote was unanimous in favor of the ordinance. All council members in

attendance voted for this. He noted that the vote is public record.

David Bower, 1435 Green Pheasant Lane, addressed the commission again. He questioned if any

of the commission members have ever walked the land. Schneider responded that he has and has

done so for the past fifty years. He commented that the development of the land over the years

has been positive to the City of Batavia. Schneider clarified that the Public Hearing is part of the

process and that he would be surprised that a vote be placed tonight. Schneider commented that

this Public Hearing should be continued.

Bower questioned why there are so many straight lines on the zoning map when there are a lot of

oak trees and the land is hilly. Additionally, he was concerned that the character of the property

will disappear. Swanson stated that in order to zone property you have to legally describe it.

Typically zoning boundaries are streets. Streets do not all go straight, they have curves. There is

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 13 of 14

little chance that these boundaries will remain exactly as is. Some of the lines will move when

the streets are delineated. Bower restated his concern with what Batavia gets out of this project.

Swanson responded that the city would receive tax revenue on the property when it is annexed

based on the assessed value of the land. The city’s tax levy would apply to properties within the

city limits.

Maggie Soliz, 1022 Morton Street, understands the fear and how things change. She stated that

trust is a hard thing to do. Soliz commented that she understands everyone’s views. Thirty-one

years ago she lived at the edge of town. After developments she is no longer at the edge of town.

She enjoyed the open fields and thought they were beautiful but now looking at the subdivisions

built she thinks they are beautiful too. The people that she has met through the new

developments have brought a lot of vitality to the city and additional residents will to the same.

She stated that we worry about all those people coming but all of the people will be tremendous

assets to the children in our schools, buyers in our art festivals, and will have a lot to offer our

city. Soliz concluded that she thinks that participating in dialogue is more constructive than

milling and making accusations.

Paul Nelson, 37W708 Cigrand Court, is not concerned with development of the property but his

main concern is with the types of developments being brought in. He is concerned about the

multi family medium density housing proposed to be built. The neighborhood where he grew up

had become ruined by high density and multi-family housing. Housing that didn’t start out to

become what it has become changed affecting the dynamics of the neighborhood. One by one,

high crime and gang activity has plagued the multi-family housing. He is a police officer and

sees what the multi-family housing has become and would hate for Batavia to have the same

crime issues.

Tim Moore, 1411 Green Pheasant Lane, asked why this development is being created without a

development plan. Swanson responded that the scale of this project is so large to expect/predict

what exactly would occur through the course of developing the parcels would be unrealistic. He

gave the example of the manpower wasted on planning and approving a project on Kirk Road

which has been annexed and approved by the city. The only thing that has been built was a water

tower by the city. The development on this property will most likely end up different than what

was planned and there was a tremendous waste of resources used toward the planning of this

project. Swanson explained that this project is significantly larger in scope. At this point it is

simply an annexation in an attempt by Moose International to obtain initial authorization to do

more detailed planning. The annexation agreement will give greater detail than what a simple

zoning map will do. The detailed planning in the past had parcels owned by a developer as

opposed to a land owner.

Moore asked about Parcel C and if the PC has talked to the water department to understand how

this drainage will work. Swanson responded that the city’s Public Works Department and

Engineering Department are both on the team of professionals that are evaluating the annexation

agreement. In all cases of new development it is the private sector’s engineer that does the

drainage design. The city reviews it, approves it, and in many cases will modify it to make sure it

works correctly. We also inspect the construction and facilities when completed. The annexation

agreement will call for the preparation of a preliminary drainage master plan for the entire site

Plan Commission

September 8, 2010

Page 14 of 14

before any individual development applications are proposed. That will have to be done by an

engineer that is qualified to do such plans and will be reviewed by the city’s professional staff.

Moore asked for the PC to inquire on what type of wildlife lives within the proposed parcels.

Moore asked to have this postponed and that there are a lot of comments that need to be

considered.

The PC discussed the preferred method to move forward. Schneider requested to continue the

Public Hearing and not vote tonight. Tilmon agreed that he would like to reconvene so that more

residents could speak. Swanson stated that the newly adopted Zoning Code allows staff to

require the property owner to host a neighborhood meeting. Vice-Chair Kosky asked for a

motion to continue the public hearing for a month from now and have the property owner host a

neighborhood meeting.

Swanson requested residents who are interested in attending a neighborhood meeting to email

their interest to Joe Segobiano at jsegobiano@hudsonburnham.com. The neighborhood meeting

information will be placed on the city’s website. Residents are welcome to contact staff

regarding the neighborhood meeting as well.

Motion: To continue the Public Hearing to the October 20, 2010 Plan Commission

meeting and to require the property owner to host a neighborhood meeting

Maker: Evans

Second: Weiss

Voice Vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent

Motion carried.

6. Discussion: Update of the Standard Design Review Conditions for Commercial and

Industrial Projects

The discussion was tabled to the September 22, 2010 Plan Commission meeting due to lack of

time.

7. Other Business

There were no other business.

8. Adjournment

There being no other business to discuss, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting by

Commissioner Schneider; seconded by Commissioner Monn. All in favor. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 10:06pm.

Minutes by Jennifer Austin-Smith

Mooseheart International (Host) Community Meeting Zoning Discussion October 6, 2010 7pm – 9pm Summary of Questions/Concerns PLEASE NOTE: This summary is not a word-for-word record of the statements made at the meeting. This summary is

not intended to be a comprehensive review of all comments and questions. This document was created to identify the

individual concerns and questions of the attendees, however, may not include some of the individual attendee’s

comments or questions, nor the complete comments if listed. Names of individuals that spoke were not all stated

therefore are not all listed below.

Pam B.

Pam stated concern with type of multi-family housing and does not want to have rentals going in.

As Joe Segobiano explained, there are no definite plans at this time regarding the type of multi-

family. The focus of the meeting is to discuss zoning for the property. Pam inquired how new

utilities affect existing communities that are on well and sewer? The proposed project will not

affect the existing well and sewer. She asked what is going to happen with the schools; they are

already crowded? Joe Segobiano stated the single family residential will be age restricted and

will only help fund the school without increasing the school’s population.

Leonard Wadewitz, 1163 Danforth Drive

What is going to prevent Mooseheart from selling and putting the money in the bank? Joe Segobiano stated Mooseheart is a neighbor to Batavia and has a vested interest in seeing this project succeed. Leonard stated there is no demand for what Mooseheart is proposing and

asked about green alternatives such as selling to the government or local farms, etc? Joe

Segobiano stated if it would be profitable for Mooseheart to do that they would.

Raymond Dremel, 1361 Towne Ave

Will Mooseheart put into an agreement that they will remain the master developer? Joe

Segobiano stated that it would not be in Mooseheart’s best interest to do that.

Tom Gorr, 609 Millview Drive

What if City of Batavia says no; what will Mooseheart do? As noted by Joe Segobiano

Mooseheart has alternative options if not approved by the City of Batavia. Tom asked why all of

the sudden will Batavia have a surplus of taxes? Joe stated the tax benefit will be throughout the

life of the development which could be 20 years.

Another attendee stated the project will be over the required PE cap for sewage and if sewage

flows above cap will Mooseheart pay for a new plant? Joe stated Mooseheart is not allowed to

exceed the 1525 PE Cap therefore it will not require a new plant.

Dwayne Gillon, 1230 Newton Avenue

There are options with Fox Metro regarding the 1525 PE Cap. Joe Segobiano stated we are in the

process of working with Fox Metro.

Another attendee asked what will happen with the streets and access roads? Joe Segobiano stated

at this time we are only going through the process of zoning with the City of Batavia. We have

not yet determined or made any plans for streets and access. However, Mooseheart is obligated

to follow all requirements of KDOT and the City of Batavia.

Another attendee asked how revenue will be generated for Mooseheart on the residential

development? Attendee questioned who will maintain the residential property? Joe Segobiano

stated Mooseheart discussed creating land leases for revenue. In addition, the Developer and/or

Mooseheart will ultimately have the responsibility of maintenance. The question was then asked

what assurance will there be of the open space to remain open? Joe Segobiano stated the open

space is required to remain as open space through the City of Batavia approved Comprehensive

Plan; it would take a vote of City Counsel to change use.

Jim Urhausen, 28 N 1st Street, Geneva

Mr. Urhausen asked if Fox Metro District is taking the steps to amend capacity to support the

project and is there an agreement with City of Batavia and Fox Metro? Joe Segobiano stated

Mooseheart is currently working with Fox Metro and there is no agreement with the City of

Batavia.

Marty Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant

Can Mooseheart survive if nothing gets developed in 10 years? Scott Hart from Mooseheart

International replied yes. Mr. Barrett inquired why Mooseheart wants to rezone if there is no

market as stated by Joe Segobiano. Joe Segobiano explained Mooseheart is currently in the

process for zoning approval. This will position the property for development in the future when

the market turns around.

Another attendee asked if there is a survey that shows there is a demand for Active Adult? Joe

stated based on internal analysis done we have found there is, in fact, a need for Active Adult.

The attendee also asked if wildlife and deer already been eliminated because of this project? Joe

Segobiano stated no action has been taken by Mooseheart to eliminate any plants or animals; we

are only working through the zoning process. Attendee asked if project will begin all at one time

and will Developer be held to certain standards as she was in her community; as far as RVs and

fireplaces, etc? Joe Segobiano stated more than likely the market will not enable the project to

start all at once. Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham anticipates development to be phased in and the

zoning process will take its time instead of a piecemeal approach. Additionally, the Developer

will have to abide by all standards and ordinances governed by the City of Batavia as any

community in the City of Batavia is required. Mooseheart will retain the right to enforce more

strict guidelines and standards as well.

Another attendee stated she believes the proposed project will have an impact on the schools due

to the Active Adult community. Joe Segobiano stated the Active Adult will be restricted to no

children therefore this project will not have any direct impact on the population of the school.

Ben Bernardi, 554 Mallard Pointe Drive

Mr. Bernardi declared he is concerned with the commercial; he lives in North Aurora and does

not want to worry about staring at a Costco or Wal-Mart. Joe Segobiano stated it is not decided

what type of commercial will be there at this time.

Scott Vance, 2721 Sperry Court

Mr. Vance is concerned about a new sub-station that will require power lines. Joe Segobiano

stated that any lines for power would be buried along Randall Road.

Debbie Westley, 25961 Sperry Court

Ms. Westley stated once the property is zoned all the property values will drop. What type of

commercial are you thinking of putting in? Joe Segobiano stated our research shows

development will in fact increase property values and some commercial use can be a benefit to

the surrounding neighbors. He also explained there are no plans with any Developers at this time

and the type of commercial is unknown.

H Luke Brinks, 1211 Danforth Drive

Mr. Brinks inquired about what price points are you running the taxes for. What developers are

you talking to that are willing to lease land? Have you seen this before that was successful and

can you give examples? Joe Segobiano stated the price points used for analyzing taxes were

$250,000. Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham are currently speaking with several “best in class”

Developers. We have seen this succeed before and are familiar with a similar development in the

north suburbs.

Another Attendee asked if zoning goes through and Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham finds out

revenue will not produce could Mooseheart still sell? Joe Segobiano stated that it would be

Mooseheart’s right to sell the property if they wanted but they are neighbors of the property and

have a vested interest in seeing it survive.

Another attendee asked what studies have been done for this project? Are there Land Surveys?

Highest and best use? Annexation agreement? And can you share them? Joe Segobiano stated a

highest and best use was created along with an annexation agreement, however the annexation

agreement has not been finalized. City of Batavia representative, Bill McGrath, stated all

documents the City of Batavia has is available to the public. The City of Batavia has been

working with Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham in the rezoning process. It does not matter how long

this process takes to create a solution; the City of Batavia is willing to put in the time with

Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham.

Kelly Lukowicz, 1145 McClurg Drive

What if Batavia does not approve; legally what can you do about it? Are there alternative

options to seek approval? Joe Segobiano stated there are alternative options. Pat Griffin, Zoning

Attorney for the project, stated Mooseheart does have alternative options. The project currently

resides in Kane County and Mooseheart can go through the process with the County to get the

project approved if necessary. Also, there is a possibility for approval in North Aurora.

Another attendee stated Mooseheart does not have the money to develop the water and needs the

public to fund it. Joe Segobiano stated that Mooseheart does have money and that is not the case.

Furthermore, Developer will be required to pay for utility improvements.

Laura Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant

How do you compare this project to the Moosehaven, a Mooseheart community located in

Florida? Ms. Barrett has concerns with the Active Adult in Homestead and believes this will be

in direct competition of that community. Joe Segobiano stated that this project is a completely

different type of project than Moosehaven which is exclusive to members only. Our project is

targeted for an active adult lifestyle and not a senior living-type facility. She also stated she is

concerned if the Developer fails the project can become abandoned and unsafe. Joe stated that is

a genuine concern and the project will not happen tomorrow. The Developer selected for the

project will be “best in class” and is required to go through a selective process all managed by

Mooseheart. Mooseheart will be in the community for 100 more years and they are looking for

this project to do be successful.

Randy Forman, 990 Danforth Drive

Mr. Forman stated his wife and him have lived here for 17 years and believe the City of Batavia

can benefit from this project. Mooseheart is donating 20 acres to the school in order to put their

baseball diamonds on, a donation that is desperately needed by the school. Randy stated the land

is owned by Mooseheart and is their right to build on it. He is in support of this development.

1

MOOSEHEART ANNEXATION AND ZONING

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

October 15, 2010

Q. WHY IS MOOSEHEART ANNEXING LAND TO BATAVIA?

A. Moose International has decided that it needs additional revenue to operate Mooseheart Child

City. Membership in the Moose has been declining over the years, and Child City is supported

by membership fees and general revenues of the organization. In order to sell or lease their land

they would need to obtain approval for land uses other than the farming use now permitted by

Kane County zoning. Like any other property owner, Moose International has the right to use its

land for productive purposes. Moose International has decided to ask the Batavia City Council

to annex 470 acres of its land, on both the east and west sides of Randall Road.

Q. WHY CAN’T MOOSEHEART DEVELOP ITS PROPERTY IN KANE COUNTY OR

ANNEX TO NORTH AURORA? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO COME INTO BATAVIA?

A. Kane County will not permit significant development in unincorporated areas without

sanitary sewer service. They also require property owners to develop within an adjacent

municipality that can provide public services. The City of Batavia and the Village of North

Aurora entered into a boundary agreement in 2003 that establishes Mooseheart Road east of

Randall and Orchard Road west of Randall as the future annexation limit between the two

communities. The boundary agreement is valid until 2023. All of Mooseheart land is within the

future annexation area of Batavia.

Q. DOES BATAVIA HAVE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY?

A. No. Annexation is a choice that the Batavia City Council will make. There is no legal

obligation to annex property into any jurisdiction. The Council will have to determine that the

annexation will be in the best interest of the community. Annexation requires a 2/3 vote of the

City Council on an ordinance after it holds a public hearing.

Q. IF THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED, WHAT GUARANTEES WILL THE CITY HAVE

THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY?

A. There are several ways the City is protected. First, the annexation will be pursuant to an

annexation agreement. This is a contract between the City and Moose International that sets

forth the conditions under which the City will annex the property. It is a legally binding

document, and may run for as long as 20 years. Second, the City has very strong development

regulations, including subdivision regulations and a new Zoning Code. Everything that gets built

in the City is subject to design review by the Plan Commission, and subdivisions require City

Council approval. Many additional county, state and federal regulations apply as well.

2

Finally, all development decisions will be made in public meetings with many of them requiring

formal public hearings. The community will have opportunities to ask questions and comment

on development proposals at these public meetings.

Q. WHAT DOES MOOSHEART WANT TO BUILD?

A. Mooseheart itself does not intend to build anything. They propose to act as a master

developer of their property, planning the land uses, utilities, major streets and access points, and

establishing design guidelines for those who will actually develop individual parcels.

Mooseheart will choose the future developers of their land. Because of the size of the property

and the different land uses proposed, no one developer would be able to effectively build all of it.

This is why there is no specific development proposal on the table at this time. The types of land

uses are controlled by the City through its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, plus whatever

additional restrictions are approved in the annexation agreement.

Q. WHY THE BIG HURRY TO APPROVE THIS ANNEXATION AND ZONING?

A. This project has been under consideration by Moose and the City for about two years. Just

because there is no specific development proposal does not mean that City review and action on

the annexation application should be delayed. The City intends to insure that the annexation

agreement in particular is solid and protects the community over time. It also has to be fair to

Moose International, which is a long-standing community asset. There is no reason to rush it

through, but there is also no reason to arbitrarily delay the annexation and agreement once they

are ready for approval.

Q. HOW CAN THE CITY PROVIDE UTILITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES TO

THIS LARGE AREA?

A. Providing water, sanitary sewer, fire, electricity, police services, and storm drainage are all

complicated and challenging issues. All the physical improvements necessary to provide

services to the annexed area will be paid for and installed by the developers of the property. The

City will not incur additional capital costs as a result of the annexation.

Water. New water lines will connect to existing lines in the City, and there will be an

emergency connection to the Village of North Aurora water system at Mooseheart Road.

Sanitary Sewer. Sewer service north of Mill Creek will be provided by the City of

Batavia, but south of Mill Creek it will be by Fox Metro Sanitation District in Aurora.

The amount of development north of the creek will be limited by the annexation

agreement to protect the City’s sewer capacity, especially for downtown redevelopment.

Fire Protection. All of the annexation area is within the current boundaries of the

Batavia Fire Protection District. The area can be served by the existing west fire station

and through the mutual aid agreement with North Aurora. The Fire Department

3

anticipates no additional staffing will be required, but obviously over time experience

will dictate any change in staffing requirements.

Electric. The Batavia electric utility has capacity to serve the annexation area.

Developers will need to construct transmission lines and potentially a new substation in

the south portion of the property. Mooseheart has stated that permanent electric

transmission lines will be installed underground along the Randall Road corridor, but

outside of the Kane County right-of-way.

Police. Batavia Police will handle emergency and non-emergency calls in the annexation

area. Randall Road is a Kane County highway, so both the Batavia PD and the County

Sheriff will respond to traffic calls. Investigations will be handled in the same manner as

currently done for the rest of the City. Given the distance of some parts of the property

from the current City limits, the lack of street connections to the east, and the large

number of traffic incidents on Randall Road, it is likely that additional police staffing will

be required. This will be addressed in the annexation agreement.

Storm Drainage. Developers will be responsible for constructing both drainage and

detention facilities. Facilities will be sized to accommodate the new runoff caused by

development, and to accommodate some of the existing stormwater runoff that affects

existing neighborhoods. The annexation agreement requires stormwater management

plans to be prepared by the developer and approved by the City before any development

takes place. All stormwater management plans will conform to the Kane County

ordinance and the Batavia City Code.

Q. MOOSEHEART IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, SO WILL THE DEVELOPMENT

PAY PROPERTY TAXES?

A. Yes. The entire development will be taxable, because the project is not directly related to the

tax-exempt activities of Mooseheart Child City. This will be true even if Moose retains

ownership of the land and leases it to private parties. The only exception would be the parks and

open space parcel if it permanently deed restricted for open space purposes, or is deeded to a

preservation entity.

Q. IS MOOSEHEART ITSELF GOING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY?

A. No. Moose International intends to leave the Mooseheart campus itself unincorporated.

Q. WILL EXISTING UNINCORPORATED NEIGHBORHOODS BE ANNEXED INTO THE

CITY AS PART OF THE MOOSEHEART ANNEXATION? CAN PRIVATE WELLS AND

SEPTIC TANKS BE KEPT?

A. No. State law would prohibit the City from forcing the annexation of the Heritage West

neighborhood or other unincorporated properties. The property owners and residents would have

to formally request annexation. Kane County regulates wells and septic tanks, and they only

have to be abandoned if they quit working.

4

Q. HOW CAN THE CITY ENSURE THAT THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON

ORCHARD ROAD WILL BE A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT?

A. In addition to the development standards in the Zoning Code, the City has adopted design

guidelines for multifamily development. The City Plan Commission has to approve the design

of all new construction projects, and uses the 13-page multifamily design guidelines as a basis

for its decisions. The guidelines cover architecture, colors and materials, site planning, and

landscaping, and will make certain that any development is a good neighbor to existing homes.

Q. WON’T THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CAUSE TRAFFIC HEADACHES?

A. Before any development will be approved, Moose International will be required to fund a

traffic study. The study will evaluate the traffic expected to be generated by the project, identify

locations where new streets can connect to Randall and Orchard Roads, Main Street and

Millview Drive, and specify new traffic signal locations. The study will also call out the extent

of street improvements needed on existing City and County roads. Kane County will require this

study before it approves any access locations along Randall Road and Orchard Road, which are

County highways.

Q. THE TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS EAST OF RANDALL ROAD ARE SUPPOSED TO

BE “ADULT” COMMUNITIES. HOW CAN THIS BE GUARANTEED?

A. Moose International intends to deed restrict the land for occupancy by persons 55 and over.

This restriction would be permanent, and the annexation agreement will also make it a

requirement of the project. The restriction would run with the land, even after expiration of the

annexation agreement, so regardless of who owns it in the future the restriction would remain in

force. This is a common practice for senior developments.

Q. THE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS ABOUT 47 ACRES NEXT TO MILL CREEK AS OPEN

SPACE. IS THAT ALL THERE WILL BE IN THE PROJECT?

A. No. The 47 acres is to be preserved as a natural area. About 20 acres south of the Covenant

Church and the west fire station will be dedicated to the Batavia Park District and School District

101 for recreational use, most likely for baseball and softball fields. Stormwater management

areas will be planned for each area north and south of Mill Creek, and for the property west of

Randall Road. Smaller open spaces will be included in each development at it is planned in

more detail. There will be an open space buffer adjacent to developed neighborhoods.

5

Q. WHY CAN’T THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN RECREATION CENTER BE LOCATED

ON THE MOOSEHEART PROPERTY ON WEST MAIN STREET, LIKE WHAT WAS

SUGGESTED A FEW YEARS AGO?

A. The land belongs to Moose International, and they decided not to sell the Main Street land to

the Batavia School and Park Districts. Since then the Park District has reached an agreement

with the developers of the land on Island Avenue and Houston Street to build a recreation center

there, if the voters approve the November 2 referendum. The 20 acre recreational land in the

Moose annexation area will be used for baseball and softball fields, not a recreation center. In

addition, the Batavia School District 101 no longer has funds available to purchase the land.

Q. THERE IS A FLOODING PROBLEM IN THE HARVELL FARMS NEIGHBORHOOD.

WILL THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOOSEHART LAND MAKE THE PROBLEM

BETTER OR WORSE?

A. By law the development of land cannot make the flooding of adjacent property any worse.

The City will insure that the development of the Mooseheart land will improve the situation for

the Harvell Farms neighborhood. There is never a way to guarantee that everyone will be

protected from flooding all the time, but construction of detention basins and proper runoff

channels, as required by City and County development codes, will do a lot to improve the current

situation.

Q. WHY CAN’T THE MOOSEHEART LAND BE PERMANENTLY PRESERVED AS

OPEN SPACE, LIKE MANY PEOPLE WERE TOLD WOULD BE THE CASE?

A. Moose International, like all other property owners, has a right to a reasonable economic use

of their land; the City cannot legally mandate the land be preserved as open space. Although

Moose told many people over the years that they would not develop their property, their situation

has changed and so has their policy about developing their land. Many decisions were made

based on the previous Moose policy, including not extending streets into the Moose land. Those

decisions now have implications for the development of the property. Moose International will

have to solve the problems associated with limited access, utility connections and similar issues.

Q. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOOSEHEART LAND WILL LOWER PROPERTY

VALUES IN NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THE NEW HOUSES AND COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT.

A. As long as the new development is designed and built in a quality manner, with adequate

buffers and landscaping, property values in adjacent neighborhoods should be protected. In the

long run, neighborhoods throughout Batavia have increased in value even with additional

residential and commercial development, including those along Randall Road. With recent

housing market problems no one can be guaranteed of stable or increasing property values. To

the extent that people expected permanent open space on the Mooseheart land, they were

6

mistaken or misled by others. The type of housing proposed by Mooseheart is age-restricted

senior housing, which is a different market segment than the traditional family neighborhoods

adjacent to the property. The new housing product will not compete with existing housing, as

they are in different market segments. Additionally, this type of housing typically generates less

traffic during rush hours and does not add children to school districts.

Q. RANDALL ROAD ALREADY HAS TOO MUCH RETAIL SPACE, MUCH OF IT

VACANT. WHY BUILD MORE?

A. With much tighter lending and underwriting standards in place, financing for new retail

development will only take place when the vacancy rates have fallen and when much of the

planned space is pre-leased. It will undoubtedly take some time before that is the case. The

expectation is that the residential portions of the project will precede any retail component. The

Mooseheart property is the last significant retail location on Randall Road in the Tri-Cities. The

southeast corner of Randall Road and Main Street has been a designated retail location in the

City’s Comprehensive Plan for many years, as has both corners on the north half of the

Randall/Mooseheart/Orchard intersection.

Q. WILL TAXES GENERATED FROM THE PROPERTY COVER THE COST OF THE

ADDITIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED?

A. Various people have attempted to project future property and sales tax revenues from the

project at its completion. There is no accurate way to predict those revenues until the actual

development is proposed, because there are so many different land uses possible in the General

Commercial district. The best that can be said is that the tax rates will be the same as for the rest

of the City, and there has to be a balanced budget adopted by the City Council every year. There

are several other taxing districts that together receive about 90% of the property taxes in the City.

By having new developments pay for all of the costs of new infrastructure to serve the property,

the existing City taxpayers will be protected from subsidizing new development.

Q. WHAT DOES THE CITY GET OUT OF THIS ANNEXATION?

A. The City exists for a variety of purposes, but generally to insure that the quality of life is

enhanced for current and future residents, businesses and visitors. Although the City does

consider financial issues in its development decisions, they are not the sole determining factor.

If that was the case, churches would not be approved, as they contribute no direct financial

support to the City. Instead they contribute immeasurably to the social fabric of the community.

As the Mooseheart land is developed, the City will insure that it is done in a manner that

complements the rest of the City, that the project does not become a burden on current residents,

and that there is a sustainable result. The City lacks housing choices for upscale multiple family

development and single family housing suitable for older adults, so those uses would contribute

to a balanced community.

7

Q. WHY ARE THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ALL STRAIGHT?

A. The boundaries were drawn to generally reflect the locations of the various land uses. When

actual development proposals are set forth, the internal boundaries will be redrawn to line up

with the future streets, drainage areas and other more realistic boundaries. This is common

practice when there are large vacant parcels that have yet to have streets planned. The new

zoning district boundaries will be located in the same manner as the district boundaries in the rest

of the City. Any adjustment of zoning boundaries will require a public hearing before the Plan

Commission, and approval by the City Council.

Q. WILL THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON ORCHARD ROAD BECOME A

LIABILITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY?

A. Batavia has the most stringent design guidelines for multi-family development in the Fox

Valley. The guidelines, adopted in 2008, cover site planning, landscaping, architecture and

colors and materials. The new Zoning Code, adopted in May 2010, also has standards for

enclosed garages, setbacks, landscaping, private open spaces like patios and balconies, building

height, and similar elements of a project. The Plan Commission has design review authority

over all new construction in the City other than single family homes. On top of this, the City has

adopted the International Property Maintenance Code, which is actively enforced, if necessary

including citations adjudicated through our Administrative Hearing Officer.

Q. WITH ALL THE FLOODING IN THE AREA, SHOULDN’T THE CITY TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT THE MAPPED FLOOD PLAINS ON THE NORTH PARCELS?

A. Absolutely. The wetlands and flood plains on the Mooseheart property will be protected in

accordance with county and federal laws. Maps of flood-prone areas and aquatic resources

(wetlands) will be sent to the Plan Commission prior to their October 20 continued public

hearing. Future subdivision plats will have to address wetlands, floodplains and stormwater

management areas, including drainage and runoff channels. Only very limited development is

allowed in flood plains. Development must also be kept back some distance from mapped high

quality wetlands, which must be preserved. Applicants for development approvals are required

by law to delineate the wetlands on their land. Some mitigation can be permitted for the lower

quality wetland areas.

Q. HOW CAN PEOPLE KEEP ABREAST OF WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THIS

PROJECT?

A. The City has a webpage devoted to the Mooseheart project. All public documents related to

the project will be posted there, including notices, meeting minutes, staff reports and maps. The

page can be viewed at www.cityofbatavia.net.

MAIN ST

MAGNOLIA DR

FAGAN RD

DANFORTH DR

VOLINTINE FARM RD

COM ISKEY AVE

GREEN PHEASANT LN

SARA CT

KANE LN

MALL

ARD

POIN

T DR

TOWNE AVE

NEWTON CT

CANNON CT

RULE

ST

SNOW CT

ORCHARD RD

KINNE CT

TWIN ELMS LN

DEER

TRAIL

DR

SYCAM

ORE LN

HERT

ER LN

DEERPAT

H RD

FAGAN CT

PHEASANT HILL DR

DEER

PATH

RD

KEN

PEDD

Y CT

BIG WOODS DR

BUTTERMILK LN

ELFSTROM TRL

HAPNER WAY

PRAIRIE RIDGE LN

LIMESTONE DR

BIRD LN

HALLADAY DR

TIM

BER DR

DONA

T CT

HILL

TOP D

R

TANGLEWOOD DR

MOOSELAKE AVE

MOOSEHEART RD

HALLADAY

CT

MEAD

OWVIE

W RD

WILLIAMS RD

HARVELL DR

HERITAGE DR

PAYNE AVE

WHITE OAK LN

VALLEY RD

SCHO

NBAC

K CT

WADE

LN

CIGRAND CT

QUAIL

ST

RAND

ALL R

D

ALBEROSKY WAY

SCHUSTER LN

HILL LN

HUNT LN

WILD

WOOD

DR

CHALLENGE DR

NEWTON AVE

S RAN

DALL

RD

MILLVIEW DR

MCCL

URG DR

AVERILL DR

S FE

LLOW

SHIP

L N

JAMES J DAVIS DR

LAKE CIRCLE DR

MOOSE RD

CHILDRENS DREAM ST

N FE

LLOW

SHIP

L N

S PI LG

R IM

S T

A ST

BRANDON BLVD

LEGION LN

CORNERSTONE RD

BROO

KLI N

E RD

LAKE SHORE DR

OHIO ST

SPRU

CE RD

S FA R

M RD

CHANCELLOR AVE

S INT

ERNA

TIONA

L DR

N PILGRIM

ST

FARM

RD

Mooseheart PropertyFloodplain and Wetlands

10/15/10 - Community Development DepartmentSources: FEMA, KaneGIS, Batavia GIS

0 1,000500 Feet¯Maps and data provided by the City of Batavia are not intended to have, nor do theyhave, the accuracy of surveys or legal descriptions of land areas. GIS data obtainedfrom the City of Batavia is intended for representational use only. Reliance on suchmaps and data is at the risk of the recipient. This information, in either electronic or mapform, is provided “as is”. No warranty expressed or implied is made regarding theaccuracy, timeliness, or completeness of the data, nor shall the act of distributionconstitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the dataand aggregate use with other data.

Batavia City LimitsRivers and Creeks100 Year FloodplainWetlandsSubject Area